Every Important Issue Must Be Vigorously Debated By People & Press Even If It’s Sub-Judice Before Court: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that Courts, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observations, debates, and criticisms.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court emphasized that every important issue needs to be vigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is sub-judice before a Court.
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal preferred by Wikimedia Foundation Inc., challenging the Order of the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “Every important issue needs to be vigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is subjudice before a court. However, those who offer criticism should remember that Judges cannot respond to such criticism but if a publication scandalizes the court or a Judge or Judges and if a case of contempt is made out, as highlighted by Justice Iyer in the sixth principle, certainly courts should take action. But it is not the duty of the court to tell the media: delete this, take that down.”
The Bench said that Courts, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observations, debates and criticisms and in fact, Courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Akhil Sibal represented the Appellant while AOR Sahil Tagotra represented the Respondents.
Case Background
The Respondent i.e., ANI Media Private Limited instituted a Suit before the High Court against the Appellant-Wikimedia and others, seeking to pass an Order to restrain Wikimedia from posting, publishing, uploading, writing, speaking, distributing and/ or republishing any false, misleading, and defamatory content against ANI on any platform. The Single Judge directed Wikimedia to disclose the subscriber details of the Defendants to the Plaintiff-ANI. The Respondent filed an Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Order X Rule 2, and Order XI read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in the Suit seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Appellant for alleged willful disobedience to the Court’s Order. Thereafter, an opinion piece was published in the Indian Express (E-edition) titled why the case against Wikipedia in India is a challenge to freedom of speech and information.
It was also hosted in the platform of the Appellant. The Appellant filed an Appeal before the Division Bench under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC for setting aside the Single Judge’s Order. Later, a video was posted by news agency Medianama about the case. In this video again reference was made to the Judge’s warning to the Appellant and discussed as to how the Court’s decision can impact safe harbour protection and information flow in India. After the adjournment of the case, a talk page was hosted on the Appellant’s platform opening up discussions on the ongoing proceedings between the parties before the High Court. Pursuantly, the case was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, noted, “For the improvement of any system and that includes the judiciary, introspection is the key. That can happen only if there is a robust debate even on issues which are before the court. Both the judiciary and the media are the foundational pillars of democracy which is a basic feature of our Constitution. For a liberal democracy to thrive, both must supplement each other.”
The Court held that though the contention of the Appellant is that it is an intermediary in terms of Section 2(1)(w) read with Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) providing only technical infrastructure that host the platform and does not (a) publish, add or remove content on the platform, (b) decide which users are vested with certain technical privileges or (c) continually judge and censor the content posted on the platform, thereby not liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by it, it is not inclined to examine this aspect of the matter since it may have a bearing on the proceedings of the pending suit.
“Nonetheless, we are of the firm view that the Division Bench had reacted disproportionately while issuing the impugned directions. … Thus, having regard to the discussions made above, we have no hesitation in our mind that such directions could not have issued. Accordingly, the impugned directions contained in para 5 of the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 are hereby set aside”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title- Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 656)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Akhil Sibal, Advocates Tine Abraham, Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Abhijnan Jha, Shivani Rawat, Thomas J Vallianeth, Aayush Marwah, Shubhangni Jain, Abhi Uday Singh Gautam, Bakhshind Singh, Pranav Tomar, Aparajita Jamwal, Krishnesh Bapat, and Sarah Haque.
Respondents: AOR Sahil Tagotra, Advocates Sidhant Kumar, Om Batra, and Sujay Jain.
